Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works

b of the bankruptcy law, the case would have fallen within Holden v. Stratton, 191 U.S. 115, and the appeal to this court would have failed. But he took it there by appeal, though accompanied by some apparent effort to avail himself also of the other method. And as the Berlin Machine Works asserted title to the property in the possession of the trustee by an intervention raising a distinct and separable issue, the controversy may be treated as one of those "controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings" over which the Circuit Court of Appeals could, under section 24 a, exercise appellate jurisdiction as in other cases. ction 25 a relates to appeals from judgments in certain enumerated steps in bankruptcy proceedings, in respect of which special provision therefor was required, Holden v. Stratton, supra, while section 24 a relates to controversies arising in bankruptcy proceedings in the exercise by the bankruptcy courts of the jurisdiction, vested in them at law and in equity by section 2, to settle the estates of bankrupts and to determine controversies in relation thereto. Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U.S. 552; Burleigh v. Foreman, 125 Fed. Rep. 217.